Cards on the table first: I consider the stone faces in the Mori Art are genuine art. My first point is this: humanity is part of Nature, so all art is ultimat

Cards on the table first: I consider the stone faces in the Mori Art are genuine art. My first point is this: humanity is part of Nature, so all art is ultimately created by Nature. Human-produced nature the process just involves raising a human at some point during the process. Second point: Human artists don't live in a vacuum; all of them create through "imitation and recombination" of other art; "Great artists steal" and all that. The fact that an AI "recombines existing art" is an argument that makes it more like human-produced-art, not less. Third is the time scales involved. Humans start producing art when they are 2 or 3 years old, and finish producing art when they die - let's say 80 years old. On the other hand, it takes nature thousands of years to produce one of those human-looking stone faces in the museum through geological processes alone. Considering the times involved, the human-produced option feels like "the shortcut", the cheap option. Using an AI to pump 100 works per second is just the obvious next step. Finally, in the case of the Mori Art Museum, *someone* had to go through those rocks and decide "this one looks like a face" (throw into pile A) and "this one doesn't look like a face" (throw into pile B). That constitutes "Art", in the sense the Author is talking about - there was a consciousness and curation is a form of art on its own right.